I'm trying to not drop into the depths of fanboyism to spout unfounded crap based on an emotional response in some bid to try and blindly defend something I might personally feel undermines something I very much enjoy that relates to a product. Which essentially is fanboyism.  

 
Lets define what a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera is.

In a world where companies are trying to make money, and business acumen often dictates the bounds of what is what in a bid to make consumers part with their cash in the overall game playing by seemingly influential people, it often makes sense that seeming statements of officiality overrides the facts in relation to how a product functions. For example take the word "professional". There are only so many "professionals" that will buy "professional" equipments in order to perform a task that will allow them to make money. Case in point, the Canon range of DSLR camera's, its perfectly possible to take professional pictures of "DSLR quality" using a Canon EOS 1100D and use it for professional applications. It also costs significantly more than compact digital camera's despite not being nearly as expensive as other more capable D-SLR camera's made by Canon.  At some point they need to sell this professional equipment to people other than "professionals" whilst trying to encourage those with the money to spend it on more expensive capable "professional" equipment whether they are "professionals" or not.


 
Although its perfectly possible to use a canon 1100D camera for certain types of professional photography applications in order to produce what are considered to be "D-SLR quality" images, the camera is generally considered to be an enthusiasts entry level option against what other options are now available regardless of make/brand. But yet its still capable of producing "D-SLR quality" images. So lets use this as a bench mark for what general "D-SLR quality" pictures are that don't require huge amounts of low light performance for specialised application such as astronomy or taking snaps in night clubs.

 Within its hardware capabilities the entry level Canon 1100D as a D-SLR:

- Has an APS-C sensor that measures 22.2 x 14.7 mm
- Has a maximum still image resolutions of 12 megapixels
- Has an ISO range of up to 6400
- Has interchangeable lens capability
- Has the ability to take pictures in total manual modes as well as auto
- Has the ability to shoot in RAW image format
- Has a shutter speed of 30-1/4000 sec that’s in some way partially artificially  capped at and capable of 
capturing 2fps when shooting RAW of up to 5 images or 3fps x 830 images continuous when shooting JPG.
- Has 720p video shooting capabilities.


To my mind this would be the basic bench mark of a camera that is capable of producing "D-SLR picture quality" for generic professional or enthusiast applications. This is complimentary to the fact there are other variants and models that far exceed it in terms of capability regardless of form factor. There are many people who buy top of the range "professional equipment" that never actually use it in any professional way of any slights in definition. They might also lack the capability to produce actual professional like results despite having top on the line "professional" equipment. Does this mean that the equipment ceases to be professional equipment capable of professional results?

Essentially any camera of any make/brand that has the above hardware characteristics and beyond that is capable to taking pictures to the same standards and/or beyond would generally be capable of producing "D-SLR quality pictures" to my mind. More often then not the proof is also in the results of actual application and use beyond the specifications.

Given what I've said here, consider what you're going to use a D-SLR camera for, and also consider does it do what you need it to do for what you want to use it for?

If only someone could hack the NEX-F3 bios to unlock the full potential of the actual hardware it has.